Mental Context Reinstatement Increases Resistance to False Suggestions After Children Have Experienced a Repeated Event

Abstract

When children allege repeated abuse, they are required to provide details about specific instances. This often results in children confusing details from different instances, therefore the aim of this study was to examine whether mental context reinstatement (MCR) could be used to improve children's accuracy. Children (N = 120, 6–7-year-olds) participated in four activities over a 2-week period and were interviewed about the last (fourth) time with a standard recall or MCR interview. They were then asked questions about specific details, and some questions contained false information. When interviewed again 1 day later, children in the MCR condition resisted false suggestions that were consistent with the event more than false suggestions that were inconsistent; in contrast, children in the standard interview condition were equally suggestible for both false detail types and showed a yes bias. The results suggest a practical way of eliciting more accurate information from child witnesses.

Key words:

• children's memory
• eyewitness
• interviews
• memory
• mental context
• repeated experiences
• source monitoring
• suggestibility

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a Large Research Grant (A7924116) to Martine Powell and Kim Roberts from the Australian Research Council and by a grant to Kim Roberts from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The authors are grateful to the families and children who participated in this research, and to the teachers and staff of participating schools. Special thanks to Sarah Pearse. Thank you also to Natalie Aarons, Natasha Anderson, Cady Berkel, Catherine Croft, Katrina Hodgson, Melissa McCauley, Rachel Same, and Nicole Sirrine for their assistance with data collection and coding.

Notes

A portion of these data were presented at the Sixth Biennial Meeting of the Cognitive Development Society, San Antonio, TX, USA and at the 2010 meeting of the American Psychology–Law Society (Division 41 of the American Psychological Association), Vancouver, BC, Canada.